Fang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the Computer-Assisted Writing Program among EFL College Learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 246–256.
246
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by
Perceptions of the Computer-Assisted Writing Program among EFL College
Learners
Yuehchiu Fang
Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Formosa University, Taiwan // [email protected] ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of a computer-assisted writing program among EFL learners in a college composition class. A mixed method research design was employed combining both qualitative and qualitative techniques. Forty-five junior students in a Taiwanese college writing class were introduced to the computer-assisted writing program MyAccess. After using the program in class, students completed a survey questionnaire and nine students were selected for follow-up interviews based on their writing proficiency. Survey results showed that the majority of students held favorable attitudes towards using MyAccess as a writing tool, but were less positive concerning its use as an essay grading tool. Evidence obtained from a multiple choice question in the survey showed that a majority of the students benefited by using the computer-mediated feedback to revise their essays. Moreover, interview data revealed that the computer-mediated feedback had a positive effect on writing skill development, particularly in suggesting changes for form rather than for content. Finally, eight of the nine interview participants suggested that MyAccess could be utilized in future writing classes. Further discussions of the benefits of adopting computer-assisted writing software such as increased learner motivation and learner autonomy also indicate that this kind of software can be a useful support tool in the EFL classroom.
Keywords
Computer-assisted writing instruction, computer-mediated feedback, learner motivation, learner autonomy, EFL
Introduction
The rapid development of computer technology together with the use of computers by linguists and literary researchers, and the increasing importance of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), computer-mediated communication (CMC), and computer-assisted language instruction (CALI) has greatly influenced both writing instruction and writing research in recent years.
Since the 1980s, CALL software applications have tended to shift the locus of control from the computer to the learner. Later generations of CALL viewed the computer as a tool controlled by the learner rather than an expert
controlled environment for the learner (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).
Some studies have suggested that the use of writing software applications in students’ texts may be positively correlated with the text quality or L2 proficiency (Ferris, 1994; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Jarvis, Grant, Bikowskia, & Ferris, 2003). On the other hand, other studies have shown negative effects for novice writers (Brock, 1990a, 1990b; Pennington & Brock, 1990). Pennington and Brock (1990) noticed that when ESL students used a text analyzer alone without teacher feedback, the results were that writers tended to accept the analyzer’s suggestions, even when those alternatives were inappropriate. Studies conducted by Brock (1990a, 1990b) suggested that L2 writing errors are more idiosyncratic and harder to classify than L1 errors.
Automated essay scoring software was originally designed to reduce teacher work load in grading large numbers of student essays. Two of the most popular computer-based writing tools in Taiwan are Criterion by Educational Testing Service and MyAccess by Vantage Learning. By means of these tools, learners can choose from a range of essay topics to practice multiple drafts and receive immediate feedback in the form of both holistic scores and diagnostic comments on grammar, theme, usage, organization, and content development. Elliot and Mikulas (2004) concluded that over 85% of learners rated their satisfaction with the automated feedback on their essays as both helpful and accurate after using MyAccess. On the contrary, the study conducted by Herrington (2001), revealed that the scoring engine of MyAccess could be circumvented by writers because it assessed scores based on essay length. Previous studies conducted in Taiwan have discussed the effectiveness of MyAccess in the writing classroom (Chen & Cheng, 2006; Yang, 2004). Chen and Cheng (2006) reported the students’ dissatisfaction with the computerized feedback. An important reason was that it failed to offer specific feedback concerning the essay content. However,
the results of the study by Yang (2004) showed students’ positive attitudes toward the automated essay grader tool, in terms of the rapid speed of feedback.
In addition, several researchers have emphasized the use of computer programs to enhance learner autonomy in second language learning, particularly in the field of ESL/EFL writing (Milton, 1997; Williams, 2005). According to Williams (2005), if the use of the computer software is carefully modeled, it can offer students both assistance and autonomy in the writing process. Furthermore, Milton (1997) suggested the use of computer programs to serve the aim of the autonomous development of writing skills, particularly for EFL writers.
Above all, because of the many pitfalls in the use of writing software with L2 or EFL students, writing teachers need to be aware of the possible benefits and drawbacks for their learners. Therefore, the present study focuses on obtaining a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of a specific computer-assisted writing program, MyAccess, from the learners’ perceptions in an EFL context.
A brief overview of the writing software, MyAccess, used in this study
MyAccess was offered to 45 junior students divided into two classes in their third-year EFL composition course in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at a technological university in Taiwan in the spring semester of the 2007 academic year. After watching demonstrations of two computer-based writing tools, Criterion and MyAccess,
the instructor decided to adopt MyAccess to supplement classroom instruction due to the department with insufficient funding to carry out both based writing programs simultaneously. In fact, this was the first time computer-based writing software had been applied to any English composition class in the department.
An automated essay grader
MyAccess, developed by Vantage Learning, is one of the most popular computer-assisted writing programs in Taiwan. It was used both as an essay grader and as a writing tool in this writing course. As an automated essay evaluation tool, students can choose from a defined number of practice essay topics, then write their multiple drafts, and receive immediate feedback in the form of both holistic scores and diagnostic comments on grammar (in the Language Use section), theme (in the Focus section), usage (in the Mechanics & Convention section), organization, and content & development. The electronic grader in this writing program was trained to check for lexical complexity, syntactic variety, topic content, and grammatical errors based on “known score” essays marked by human graders.
A writing tool offering diagnostic feedback
With regard to MyAccess as a writing tool, two other important functions were adopted in the writing course offered to these students: 1) My Editor, and 2) My Tutor. My Editor is a proofreading system, providing spelling correction and analyzing text to detect and correct errors in grammar. Moreover, it also offers an explanation of any problems that arise and offers suggestions about how mistakes might be corrected. My Tutor offers prescriptive feedback throughout the writing process on the following five domains: 1) Focus, 2) Content, 3) Organization, 4) Language Use, and 5) Mechanics & Convention.
Research questions
This study examined qualitative and quantitative aspects of using the computer-assisted writing program, MyAccess, in an EFL composition class from the learners’ perceptions. The following three research questions were specifically addressed in this study:
1. What are the learners’ attitudes toward the use of MyAccess in the EFL writing class?
2. In the computer-mediated setting, what are the effects of using computer-mediated feedback for the revision of learners’ essays and for learner writing skill development?
Method
ParticipantsThe participants in this study comprised forty-five junior students in the Applied Foreign Languages Department of a vocational and technological university in Taiwan who were volunteered to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to these juniors divided into two classes on May 31, and June 4, 2007 at the end of the spring semester. All of these Mandarin-speaking students were enrolled in the required course, Intermediate English Writing, for the spring semester, 2007. Although they had already taken a basic writing course in their second academic year, their writing skills were quite elementary. Among the forty-five students who participated in the study, eighty-nine percent were female and eleven percent were male. Nine percent of the students were between 18 and 20 years old, eighty-nine percent were between 21 and 25 years old, and two percent were between 26 and 30 years old.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with nine students. The students were selected by the teacher on the basis of their English writing proficiency: 3 from the top 33%, 3 from the middle 33%, and 3 from the bottom 34%. Informed consent forms were signed by the participants before they were interviewed by the researcher. To maintain the anonymity of the participants in the interviews, each student was assigned a number from 1 to 9.
Student Participant Background
Table 1 provides an overview of student participation in English writing activities outside of school, which was considered to be very relevant to this study. As Table 1 illustrates, 47% of the students who filled out the questionnaire answered ‘yes’ to Question 18: “Do you ever use English to write outside of your school activities?” From the responses to Question 19, “For what purpose(s) do you write in English outside of classroom work?” we find that 16% of students wrote English letters, 23% wrote English compositions, 18% wrote English songs, 18% exchanged emails with e-pals, 22% kept English diaries and 3% wrote drafts of English speeches.
Table 1: Extracurricular English Writing Activity for the Student Sample (N=45)
Description Frequency Valid
Percent
18. English writing outside of school Yes No 21 24 47 53
19. Kinds of English English letters 10 16
writing: English compositions 15 23
English songs English diaries 11 14 18 22 Exchanging emails with e-pals
Chatting with friends through MSN
11 18
Writing a draft of an English speech 2 3
20. Using computers outside of school Yes No 45 0 100 0
21. Purpose for using Writing English assignments 38 33
computers: Chatting with friends in English 17 15
over the Internet
Obtaining information from 42 36
English Internet sites
Exchanging emails with e-pals 8 7
Practicing English writing through e-mail 10 9
22. Preferred feedback Computer feedback from MyAccess 4 9
Teacher’s written feedback 41 91
23. Helpful in improving English writing
Computer feedback from MyAccess 6 13
As shown in Table 1, all of the students used computers outside of school. We find that 33% of the students did so in order to write English assignments, 15% to chat with their friends in English over the Internet, 9% to practice English writing through e-mail, 36% to obtain information from English Internet sites, and 7% to exchange emails with e-pals. Furthermore, it was found that 91% of the students preferred their teacher’s written feedback, and only 9% preferred the computer feedback from MyAccess. As to Question 23, “Which feedback do you think is more helpful in improving your English writing?” we can see that 87% chose their teacher’s written feedback, and 13% the computer feedback from MyAccess.
Data collection and analysis
The data used in this study came from survey questionnaires completed by forty-five junior students, and semi-structured follow-up interviews with nine student participants.
Survey Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of two sections containing twenty-three questions in total. The survey was carried out anonymously to reduce the potential for uncomfortable feelings among the participants. Section I contained nine items that were designed around a five-point Likert-type scale to identify the participants’ perceptions of the activity, writing essays with MyAccess, during their English composition classes. After collection, data was coded in an SPSS for WINDOWS datasheet for the purpose of analysis. It also included one multiple choice question, number 10, designed to elicit the students’ responses to the computer feedback, and one open-ended question, number 11, designed to elicit any students’ feelings about the activity, which may not have been captured by the Likert-type questionnaire items.
Section II contained twelve questions designed to elicit background information from the participants, such as gender, age, their major in senior high school, English writing activities outside of school, computer use in practicing English writing activities, and responses to writing feedback.
Interview
The follow-up interviews with the nine selected student participants took place individually in the university on June 13 and 14, 2007 at the end of the spring semester.
The semi-structured interview style was conversational, involving open-ended questions that would encourage the participant to embellish and expand on the ideas proposed. The researcher used a portable cassette tape recorder during the interview, and the recordings also gave the researcher a chance to perform “member checking” (Creswell, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 2005; Merriam, 1988, 1998), whereby, after each interview, the participant was given a transcript of the interview through e-mail. This sharing technique ensured that any material that made the interviewee uncomfortable was excluded from the study and that the participant’s perspective was precisely presented. In addition to the first interview with the participant, second, or third follow-up interviews were conducted with the participant through e-mail or by telephone. These follow-up interviews were designed to elicit further details suggested by the earlier interview, in order to best serve the purposes of the study, and suggest potential themes in the process of data analysis. The analysis of data followed the general recommendations of Marshall and Rossman (2006) for in-depth interviewing, and of Strauss and Corbin (1998) for grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin (1990) assert that “analysis in grounded theory is composed of three major types of coding, (a) open coding; (b) axial coding; and (c) selective coding. At the conclusion of the study, the interview data from all of the participants were compared and categories were established. Themes were broken down into these categories, as reflected by the interview data, for the purpose of report-writing.
Results
From the questionnaire results, the student participants’ attitudes toward writing essays with MyAccess during the writing classes were analyzed in terms of the mean scores of their answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for not sure, 2 for disagree, and 1 for strongly disagree). Mean and standard deviations of students’ responses are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The results are reported in Figures 1 and 2 as well as Tables 2 and 3.
Learners’ attitudes toward using MyAccess as an essay grader
Items 1 to 6 relate to the use of MyAccess as an essay grader (see Table 2). The results of the data analysis showed that the mean scores were all above 3.0, but below 3.50 for all six items.
Table 2: Distribution of mean scores of learners’ attitudes toward the use of MyAccess as an essay grader (n=45)
Item Description Mean S.D. Rank
1. I feel satisfied with the automated grading system of MyAccess. 3.22 .93 6
2. I feel satisfied with the computer feedback to the organization of paragraphs offered by the automated grading system.
3.07 .92 9 3. I feel satisfied with the computer feedback to the content of my essay offered by the
automated grading system.
3.13 .94 7 4. I feel satisfied with the computer feedback to English vocabulary offered by the
automated grading system (Conventions).
3.09 .98 8 5. I feel satisfied with the computer feedback to English grammar offered by the
automated grading system (Language).
3.24 1.03 5 6. I feel satisfied with the computer feedback to the theme of my essay offered by the
automated grading system (Focus).
3.40 .89 4
As shown in Table 2, the mean score of item 1, “I feel satisfied with the automated grading system of MyAccess” was 3.22 and the mean scores of the other items related to the use of MyAccess as an essay grader were all above 3.0, but below 3.50. This suggests that the majority of the learners seemed to have less positive attitudes toward the use of MyAccess as an essay grader.
Questions 1 to 6 in Figure 1 also indicate the degree of students’ agreement about the use of MyAccess as an essay grader. Indeed, the results of Q1 show that only 46.6% of learners felt satisfied with the automated grading system of
MyAccess; 28.9% of them were dissatisfied with it and 24.4% of respondents said they were not sure. Particularly, below 40% of respondents agreed with the following three items (Q2, 3, and 4) relating to the use of MyAccess as an essay grader. Thus, the majority of the learners were dissatisfied with MyAccess as an essay grader.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Questions % Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Learners’ responses to the use of MyAccess as a writing tool
The results of the data analysis revealed that the mean scores were between 3.0 and 4.0 for the other three items. Items 7 to 9 relate to the learners’ perceptions of using MyAccess, particularly as a writing tool.
As Table 3 illustrates, the top two items with which the students agreed were (1) “I will correct my grammar and revise my essays after using My Editor of MyAccess.” (M=3.89), and (2) “I will read the computer feedback and revise my essays after using My Tutor of MyAccess.” (M=3.73). This suggests that the learners’ responses to the use of MyAccess as a writing tool were positive since My Editor and My Tutor were the two important writing tools the learners used to revise their essays.
Table 3: Distribution of mean scores of learners’ responses to the use of MyAccess as a writing tool (n=45)
Item Description Mean S.D. Rank
7. I will read the computer feedback and revise my essays after using My Tutor of My Access.
3.73 1.03 2 8. I will correct my grammar and revise my essays after using My Editor of My
Access.
3.89 .86 1 9. Writing essays with My Access helps me to improve my English writing. 3.47 1.01 3 In addition, the results presented in Figure 2 showed that about 85% of the learners agreed that they would correct their grammar and revise their essays after using My Editor (item 8), and only 6.6% of them disagreed. Nearly 74% agreed that they would read the computer feedback and revise their essays after using My Tutor (item 7), while 11.1% said they disagreed.
0 20 40 60 80 Q7 Q8 Q9 Questions % Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Figure 2: Learners’ Responses to the Use of MyAccess as a Writing Tool
In general, the top two of the nine items with which the students agreed were (1) “I will correct my grammar and revise my essays after using My Editor of MyAccess” (M=3.89), and (2) “I will read the computer feedback and revise my essays after using My Tutor of MyAccess” (M=3.73). This suggests that the learners’ responses to the use of MyAccess as a writing tool were positive. Obviously, the EFL learners favored the writing tool function over the grading function offered by MyAccess.
Research question 2: In the computer-mediated setting, what are the effects of using computer-mediated feedback for the revision of learners’ essays and for learner writing skill development?
The majority of students replied that they would revise their essays according to the computer feedback. Evidence for this can be found in their answers to multiple choice question 10: “When you read the computer feedback on your essays, what was your response?” (see Figure 3).
As seen in Figure 3, of the forty-five students who answered this question, 40% said that they would revise their essays according to the feedback; 56% indicated that they would follow some parts of the feedback when revising; 2% specified that they would discuss with their classmates first and then revise according to the feedback; and only 1
student (2%) said he or she would ignore the comments. The effects of using computer-mediated feedback for the revision of learners’ essays were clear. The findings suggest that the majority of the learners would revise their essays following the computer feedback since only 2% of them would ignore the feedback.
40% 56%
2% 2%
Revise the essays according to the feedback Choose some parts of the feedback when revising
Discuss with the classmates first and revise according to the feedback Ignore the feedback
Figure 3: Q10: Response to the Computer Feedback on the Essays
According to the results of the interview data, the nine selected student participants found using computer-mediated feedback helpful for writing skill development. Three students described the prompt feedback of the automated grading system as helpful while four students preferred the My Editor function for improving their vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, word usage, and sentences. Two of them reported the My Tutor function useful for correcting their grammar. In other words, the majority of the learners indicated that the computer-mediated feedback had a positive effect on their writing skill development, particularly in the changes for form.
To improve the surface-level changes of their essays
Interviewer: Which function of MyAccess do you feel satisfied with and think really helps you to improve your English writing: 1) automated grading system 2) My tutor 3) My Editor?
Student 1: My Tutor. It offers me some suggestions, like word usage.
Student 7: My Tutor. It offers some suggestions, like punctuation or vocabulary. Student 8: My Tutor. It helps me to write sentences.
Student 9: My Tutor. It helps me with spelling.
To improve their English grammar
Interviewer: Which function of MyAccess do you feel satisfied with and think really helps you to improve your English writing: 1) automated grading system 2) My tutor 3) My Editor?
Student 4: My Editor. It offers some suggestions in grammar.
Student 5: My Editor. It can improve my writing. It helps me to correct my grammar.
In sum, the results confirm that most of the participants experienced some benefit from the computer-mediated feedback in revising their essays and the computer-mediated feedback also had a positive effect on learner writing skill development, particularly in the changes for form rather than for content.
Research question 3: What are the learners’ perceptions of using MyAccess in the future?
Learners’ reactions to the suggestion of using MyAccess in the future emerged from the interview data. The major theme was: suggestion for future use. That is, eight of the nine learners suggested that MyAccess be utilized in the writing classes in the future.
Suggestion for future use: Eight of the nine student participants suggested using MyAccess in composition classes in the future. Specifically, four of them (students 3, 5, 6, and 7) mentioned that MyAccess offered the opportunity for them to practice English writing; three of them indicated it would reduce the teacher’s load and help to give comments or correct students’ drafts; one of them (student 2) felt it was a kind of good software. Only one of them, student 8, did not suggest using MyAccess in the future. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:
To practice English writing
Interviewer: Do you suggest using MyAccess in composition classes in the future? Why or Why not?
Student 3: Yes, it has its advantage for students to practice English writing, although it can’t replace the teacher’s role.
Student 5: Yes. I think it will offer some help for us to practice English writing.
Student 6: Yes. It increases the opportunities to practice English writing. The three functions have different roles to help us.
Student 7: Yes. It offers the opportunities for students to practice English writing in class and after class.
To reduce the teacher’s load and to help give comments or correct students’ drafts
Interviewer: Do you suggest using MyAccess in composition classes in the future? Why or Why not? Student 1: Yes. It will reduce the teacher’s load and help to correct students’ drafts.
Student 4: Yes. It helps the teacher to correct students’ drafts. Student 9: Yes. It replaces the teacher to give comments.
To be a kind of good software
Interviewer: Do you suggest using MyAccess in composition classes in the future? Why or Why not?
Student 2: Yes. Although it is not like the teacher who gives the perfect comments, it is a kind of good software
In conclusion, the learners’ suggestions of using MyAccess in the future were obvious.
Discussion and Suggestions
From the results of the survey questionnaire, the learners’ attitudes toward writing essays with the computer-assisted writing program, MyAccess, have been investigated. The results revealed the learners’ favorable attitudes toward the use of MyAccess as a writing tool, but less positive attitudes toward its use as an essay grader.
A number of studies have discussed the positive as well as negative effects of students’ attitudes toward CALL software in the ESL/EFL computer-aided writing instruction. A study conducted by Braine (2001) in Hong Kong indicated that EFL writers’ drafts in traditional classes improved more than those in the classes using LAN software programs. However, the current study found that the majority of the learners had favorable attitudes toward the use of the computer-assisted writing program, MyAccess, as a writing tool. Also, the results of the multiple choice question showed the learners’ gave positive responses to the computer-mediated feedback for the revision of their essays when using MyAccess. In addition, the findings obtained from the interviews indicated that the computer-mediated feedback had a positive effect on the learner writing skill development, particularly in the changes for form rather than for content; it verified the previous findings that less-skilled writers tend to focus predominantly on low-level, convention- and rule-governed changes to their texts and tend to focus more on word level revisions rather than revisions of larger chunks of text as suggested by Fitzgerald (1987). Moreover, eight of the nine selected learners suggested the use of the computer-assisted writing tool, MyAccess, in the writing classes in the future. Therefore, the adoption of computer-assisted writing instruction is worth taking into consideration in the EFL composition classroom.
On the contrary, the results of the survey questionnaire revealed that the majority of the learners held less positive attitudes toward the use of the computer-assisted writing program as an essay grader. Moreover, the findings from the open-ended question 11 found that half of the forty-four students who responded did not like the program since they felt the automated grading system was not fair. They also thought the computer software was unable to replace the teacher’s role. In other words, they were not so satisfied with the automated grading system. Likewise, the learners’ background information showed that the majority (91%) of them preferred their teacher’s written feedback to the computer feedback of MyAcces; additionally, the majority (87%) of them felt that their teacher’s written feedback was more helpful than the computer feedback in improving their English writing. In fact, Richmond (1999) clearly explained that “all forms of integrated CALL, despite their considerable advantages, suffer from one significant shortcoming: the difficulty of providing linguistic guidance and correction for the learners using them” (p. 309).
However, the learners’ motivation for language learning is an affective factor, as Pennington (1999) mentioned that “intrinsic motivation drives performance far more reliably than extrinsic rewards or sanctions, and this basic fact about motivation applies to writing just as much as it does to other areas of performance. Most importantly, the self-motivated writer keeps pushing back the goal-posts for achievement” (p. 281). Similarly, Olsen (1980) conducted a survey on the use of CAI in departments of foreign languages across the United States, and the results showed that some of the support for the use of CAI was based on the perceived effect of the use of CAI on students’ motivation and attitudes. Nevertheless, a study carried out in China by Huang (2005), indicated that “Chinese students’ apparent passivity in the classroom is more likely to be a consequence of students’ lack of proficiency, confidence and motivation” (p. 610). Therefore, it is important to motivate students to become aware of the value of independent learning outside the classroom as the study conducted with tertiary students in Hong Kong suggested that only the most motivated learners are attracted by the independent learning program (Lee, 1998).
As discussed above, it is suggested that fostering learner motivation to develop learner autonomy in the CALL environment be critical in an EFL context. As Tschichold (1999) emphasized, there is a need to increase users’ autonomy when using CALL software, and grammar checkers, and she further suggested that students could become less dependent on the machine and on its often imperfect performance if they were given more autonomy and responsibility for their own text. Furthermore, Milton (1997) suggested the use of computer technologies to serve the aims of the autonomous development of writing skills, particularly for EFL writers. He explained the concept of autonomy that computers need to become learners’ tools rather than expert tutors, and that new technologies are very promising for allowing CALL to develop in a more autonomous direction.
Limitations and Recommendation for Future Research
Since the results of the study demonstrated mixed effects, several limitations have to be noted here. First, the subjects of this study were 45 EFL students enrolled in an EFL writing class at a technological university in Taiwan. Thus, the findings are limited to subjects with a profile similar to those participating in this project, and the finding of this study cannot generalize to students of other levels. Future research in this area might attempt to include a larger population or compare their previous academic backgrounds, for example: English majors vs. non-English majors, and high-achiever vs. low-achiever student writers. Moreover, to better understand the effect of using CALL on EFL writing performance, future research studies may focus on examining the differences between an experimental group (computer-assisted writing group) and a control group (traditional classroom group), or on comparing the effects of using different computer-assisted writing programs in case of sufficient allocations for the department.
Conclusion
The study reported here was carried out as a small exploratory scale. While the results of the study shed light on some aspects relevant to the use of the computer-assisted writing program, MyAccess, in an authentic environment, the most important findings were that the majority of the learners preferred the use of MyAccess as a writing tool; moreover, eight of the nine selected student participants also recommended the use of MyAccess in the writing class in the future. Additionally, most of them benefited from the computer-mediated feedback in their writing skill development, particularly in the changes for from rather than for content. The results of this study are similar to those of New (1999). When implementing the computer-aided writing software, Systeme-D, into a foreign language
writing class, she suggested that surface-level changes far outnumbered the changes to content. Because there were a number of weaknesses and limitations in the current study, such as the adequacy of the scoring engine, we probably need to examine different learning and teaching contexts if we have sufficient allocations for computer software programs in the department. In addition, as previous studies claimed that all computer-based writing programs cannot be used as a replacement of a teacher (Warschauer & Ware, 2006), the results of this study revealed some learners’ similar ideas. However, instead of comparing the differences between an experimental group (computer assisted writing group) and a control group (traditional classroom group), it hopes to enhance language teachers’ awareness of how such a computer-assisted writing tool, MyAccess, can be used more effectively in the writing classroom to benefit EFL student writers as well as the writing instructor in this exploratory study. Therefore, in the teaching process of EFL writing, it is essential that EFL writing instructors encourage student writers to make the most of diverse resources, such as computer-based writing programs in order to become autonomous learners.
References
Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition, 18, 275-292.
Brock, M. N. (1990a). Can the computer tutor? An analysis of a disk-based text analyzer. System, 18, 351-359.
Brock, M. N. (1990b). Customizing a computerized text analyzer for ESL writers: Cost versus gain. CALICO Journal, 8 (2), 51-60.
Chen, C. F., & Cheng, W. Y. (2006). The Use of a Computer-based Writing program: Facilitation or Frustration? Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 96-111, Taipei: Kaun Tang. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliot, S., & Mikulua, C. (2004). The impact of MyAccess! Use on student writing performance: A technology overview and four studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, C.A.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 45-65.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123-145.
Herrington, A. (2001). What happens when machines read our students’ writing? College English, 63 (4), 480-499. Huang, J. (2005). A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System, 33, 609-621.
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowskia, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (4), 377-403.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 52 (4), 282-290.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milton, J. (1997). Providing computerized self-access opportunities for the development of writing skills. In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 237-263), London: Longman.
New, E. (1999). Computer-Aided Writing in French as a Foreign Language: A Qualitative and Quantitative Look at the Process of Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 83 (1), 80-97.
Olsen, S. (1980). Foreign language departments and computer-assisted instruction: A survey. The Modern Language Journal, 64, 341-349.
Pennington, M. C. (1999). The missing link in computer-assisted writing. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design & applications (pp. 271-292), Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pennington, M. C., & Brock, M. N. (1990). Process and product approaches to computer-assisted composition. In M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics (pp. 79-109), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Richmond, I. M. (1999). Is your CALL connected? Dedicated software vs. integrated CALL. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design & applications (pp. 295-314). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tschichold, C. (1999). Grammar checking for CALL: Strategies for improving foreign language grammar checkers. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design & applications (pp. 203-221), Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10 (2), 1-24.
Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Yang, N. D. (2004). Using MyAccess in EFL writing. The proceedings of the 2004 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Taipei: Ming Chuan University, 550-564.
